This can be explained without bringing in accusations of fraud or incompetence [1].
Basically, if you have a bazillion experiments running and only publish the results which are significant, you still have a huge predictability problem, because most of those statistically significant results will be due to chance alone.
For example, assume that only 1% of cancer experiments produce something valid and interesting, and that standard for statistical significance is the industry standard 95%, or 1 in 20. If 100,000 hypothesis are tested, you'll get 100,000 * 1% = 1000 valid results and 100,000 * 5% = 5000 results from chance alone. In this example, only 16% of the published results will be reproducible, because only 1000 / 6000 are valid.
this basic fact is understood by scientists and children alike. it is still either incompetence (lack of middle school statistics) or fraud (ignoring the above fact).
Basically, if you have a bazillion experiments running and only publish the results which are significant, you still have a huge predictability problem, because most of those statistically significant results will be due to chance alone.
For example, assume that only 1% of cancer experiments produce something valid and interesting, and that standard for statistical significance is the industry standard 95%, or 1 in 20. If 100,000 hypothesis are tested, you'll get 100,000 * 1% = 1000 valid results and 100,000 * 5% = 5000 results from chance alone. In this example, only 16% of the published results will be reproducible, because only 1000 / 6000 are valid.
[1] http://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/why-most-publis...